from the late-to-the-party dept

It's Olympics season again. What is normally an expose of how the IOC and the USOC become the biggest IP bullies on the block has had a little spice added to it this year in the form of a host country that by all reports is woefully unprepared for its duties while simultaneously being rocked by a pest-spread disease with the delightful symptom of shrinking the brains of fetuses. And if that doesn't make you believe that some combination of a god and/or the universe wants the Olympics to cease to be, perhaps the fact that the whole fiasco will be broadcast by NBC will.

Yes, running in parallel with our posts about IOC bullying, you will find a history of posts about NBC's strange attempts to turn back the clock on its broadcast of the games. Historically, this has meant limiting the live streaming of most of the events, making it as difficult to find and watch any event as possible, and delaying all kinds of event broadcasts until NBC deems that the public wants to watch them. But have heart, dear friends, for the NBC overlords have listened and have declared that these Rio Olympics will be the "most live Olympics ever."

For Rio 2016, NBC says this will be its "most live Olympics ever" with 4,500 hours of coverage streaming on NBCOlympics.com and the recently renamed NBC Sports app. Also new this time around is that the NBC Sports app is on connected TV devices (it launched on Roku and Apple TV last year), not just mobile.

Now, I'll just go ahead and note here that while NBC has been very busy patting itself on the back for how much more live coverage there will be of the Olympics in Rio compared with previous broadcasts, the fact that there is a time difference of exactly one hour between East Coast time and Brazil means that all the live coverage is probably just happenstance rather than any concerted effort by NBC. But, hey, the company has still gotten the message that live coverage only makes sense in a hyper-connected world where view-on-demand can be achieved by the devices we carry around in our pockets at work and while in transit, right?

The Rio Olympics formally begin August 5th with the opening ceremony from the Maracanã stadium. Proceedings start at 7 p.m. Eastern Time, only you won’t be able to watch them on NBC until at least an hour later. At a press conference yesterday, NBC execs announced plans to broadcast the ceremony at 8 p.m. Eastern Time and 7 p.m. Central Time, each on one hour delays, and at 7 p.m. Mountain Time and 8 p.m. Pacific Time, on two and four-hour delays respectively.

So why the need for anywhere between a one and four our delay to watch the opening ceremony? Two reasons. First, forget all of that hyperconnectivity thing we just talked about, this shit has to only air during prime time. Also, without post-production and planned narration of the ceremony, you viewers won't get all of the great story lines NBC wants to feed you.

By doing a short tape-delay of one hour, it allows us to put it in a time period when more people are home to watch, because it is a Friday night and they get out of their commute or home from wherever they are. And it allows us to curate it with the narrative and storytelling of our announcers to explain what’s going on. And it allows us to put in commercials without cutting out large chunks of the show.

Also, the opening ceremony is really for all of the penis-less viewers out there. And we all know how the ladies don't really like sports but do like their soap operas, amirite?

The people who watch the Olympics are not particularly sports fans. More women watch the Games than men, and for the women, they’re less interested in the result and more interested in the journey. It’s sort of like the ultimate reality show and mini-series wrapped into one. And to tell the truth, it has been the complaint of a few sports writers. It has not been the complaint of the vast viewing public.

Now, to the point about the prime time coverage. Look, hyperconnected or not, it is certainly true that many adults only have certain hours of the day to which they can dedicate some couch-time and watch a bunch of people from a bunch of countries walk around in a circle for a while. But that doesn't mean NBC couldn't also stream the ceremony live for those that want it live. The commentary might be pared down and perhaps we wouldn't get all of the juicy narrative NBC wants to inject for lady viewers, who we all know universally hate sports and all that, but there is value to live coverage that many people want. It's not just a small number of sports writers.

As for that context it claims it needs to inject, that's not the whole story. What the delay really allows NBC to do is inject commercials wherever it wants without omitting any countries from the ceremony while also being able to cut out any undesirable content (i.e. political content) that shows up in the ceremony.

NBC has an incentive to air the ceremony live, but by delaying, they are sacrificing the chance to be first so they can tailor the coverage, cut out any shenanigans, and pick the best places to cut away to commercial. And, of course, cut anything controversial. As Gary Zenkel, NBCSG’s president, pointed out, it’s a show, not a competition.

Which, fine, if NBC wants to act as the speech filter for its viewers, so be it. But who is going to be surprised when NBC also screams bloody murder at people seeing results, highlights, and even coverage of the opening ceremony that will be available on other streams from other nations' broadcasts, on Twitter and Facebook and the like? NBC can't seriously delay its coverage and get mad when all the customers whose demands it ignores move on to other options.

But that's exactly what will happen. We've been here before, after all. And no matter how "live" these Olympics are this go-round, delaying the broadcast and stream of the opening ceremony leads me to believe I know exactly how it will go this time too.

from the adapt-or-die dept

For several years now we've noted how instead of adapting to the cord cutting age, many in the cable and broadcast industry have responded with the not-so-ingenious approach of aggressive denial, raising rates as fast as humanly possible, and stuffing even more ads into every television hour. And when broadcasters can't get the ads to fit, they'll just resort to speeding up or editing programs to ensure that they're hammering paying customers with more ads than ever. Given the rise in alternative viewing options, this obviously isn't the most ingenious form of market adaptation.

But in a sign that somebody over at the Comcast NBC Universal media empire is at least making a fleeting attempt at sector evolution, the company has announced that it will be dramatically reducing ad loads in some programs. More specifically, the company says it will be reducing the advertising load in each episode of "Saturday Night Live" by around 30%:

"NBC's "Saturday Night Live" is paring down its commercial load, with plans to cut about 30% of ads out of the sketch comedy show next season. It will do this by removing two commercial breaks per episode, giving viewers more content, said Linda Yaccarino, chairman-advertising sales and client partnerships, NBC Universal."

The catch? The company's going to be experimenting with more native, sponsored, and product placement advertising as part of the attempt to combat cord cutting and ad-skipping simultaneously:

"And for advertisers, NBC will also be offering a limited opportunity to partner with "SNL" to create original branded content. These native pods will only occur six times a year, Ms. Yaccarino said. "As the decades have gone by, commercial time has grown," Lorne Michaels, creator and executive producer, "Saturday Night Live," said in a statement. "This will give time back to the show and make it easier to watch the show live."

While it's not entirely clear what these "native pods" will exactly look like, it's not so much an evolution in advertising as it is a return to the bygone era of fifties TV sponsored product placement:

This isn't NBC's first flirtation with making a 180 industry turn back to content of this type, and the company has previously stated that advertisers can pay $300,000 or more just to get their feet in the door with product placement and native ads. And while quality and humor are certainly subjective, the problem is NBC's past experiments on this front really aren't that funny, and occasionally stumble into what feels like desperation. That opens the door to damaging your brand if your attempt to pitch laundry detergent or pharmaceuticals during a sketch is too ham-fisted.

NBC and advertisers are responding to the fact that prime time ratings and traditional cable TV subscribers continue to drop. Nielsen (the same company that used to call cord cutting "purely fiction") notes that most broadcasters continued to see up to a 4.1% decline in the number of homes tuning in to traditional television last month. That's again thanks to both cord cutting and "cord trimming," or the act of cutting back on the number of channels or premium networks a users subscribes to -- both in turn a response to high prices, restrictive viewing options, and flagging quality.

And while creatively experimenting with how ads get delivered is certainly part of the solution, it's not going to be a substitute for the one thing broadcasters (and by proxy cable companies) have been totally unwilling to do: offer the same content at a lower price. Ultimately the sector's going to have to take it on the chin, lose significantly more money, and begin seriously competing on channel bundle flexibility and price. That's an utterly unappealing proposition for an industry used to raising prices at four-times the rate of inflation, but the alternative is letting pesky, innovative upstarts walk away with legions of younger, disenfranchised television viewers.

from the who-cares-about-quality dept

We've discussed numerous times that as the Internet video revolution accelerates, the cable and broadcast industry's response has predominantly been to double down on bad ideas in the false belief that they can nurse a dying cash cow indefinitely. Netflix nibbling away at your subscriber totals? Continue to glibly impose bi-annual rate hikes. Amazon Prime Video eroding your customer base? How about we increase the hourly advertising load! Similarly, cable industry efforts at "innovative" viewing options (like TV Everywhere) are often more about giving the impression of innovation than actually innovating.

This has been going on for a while, and as complaints in this Reddit thread attest, another favorite tactic has been to heavily edit some programs for the same purpose. Fans of particularly popular programs tend to be the first to notice that their favorite content is now edited or accelerated, which may drive them to look elsewhere for a better quality version of that product (piracy, Netflix). Behold, even many executives in the cable and broadcast industry appear to be aware that adding more ads and degrading the quality of your product might not be the greatest idea for an industry at the cusp of a major competitive sea change:

"It is important for us to consider the effect this is having on the viewer experience,” said Jackie Kulesza, executive vice president and director of video at Starcom USA. “We want to ensure our message is seen by receptive viewers."..."They are trying to deal with a problem in a way that is making the problem bigger,” said Chris Geraci, president of national broadcast at media buyer Omnicom Media Group of the practice of increasing the commercial loads to make up for declining ratings."

Except the cable and broadcast industry has repeatedly shown it's not really worried about the "viewer experience." Why? Because for all of the bitching the public does about their cable company and its historically abysmal customer service, the industry knows the vast, vast majority continue to pay them an arm and a leg for bloated bundles of miserable programming that barely gets watched. Even as cord cutting accelerates, the industry isn't worried; plan B is to abuse its monopoly over the broadband last mile to ramp up deployment of broadband caps, recouping their lost pound of flesh via broadband overage fees.

from the ads-ARE-content dept

After 20 years living in the USA, I'm familiar with the scale of spectacle that is the Super Bowl (Mike, am I allowed to use that word here?) The annual championship brings in an estimated 111.5 million US viewers, according to Nielsen. But it seems our borders are somewhat porous, and the game also was viewed by some 8 million Canadians. The Big Game had "don't touch that dial" benefits, as apparently some 1.6 million Canadians, dazed in a chicken wing and poutine coma, stuck around to watch MasterChef Canada. With that massive US audience, year after year, the price of commercial time for the game broadcast goes up, this year reaching $4.5 million per 30-second spot.

As a result of the high price of the advertising, and the size of the audience, the ads have also become better and better. No sense paying $4.5 million only to bore an audience. And because of the superior quality of advertising during the Super Bowl, the ads themselves have become an important part of the overall TV program, as much as the half-time entertainment, and to some such as myself, more than even the game itself.

As it happens, for the first time in two decades, last year I found myself settling in to watch the game with my Dad in lake country North of Toronto on his fine big screen TV with a Bell ExpressVu satellite TV subscription. And we tuned into the CTV feed of the game. When the first batch of ads started, it was clear to me that they were not the big-budget productions that I was expecting. You see, CTV bought the Canadian rights to the game from the NFL, and of course it has to sell its own ad inventory in order to recoup the investment. So, instead of the blockbuster Budweiser ads that were lighting up my Twitter feed, I was seeing Canadian Tire ads, or some sale on hockey sticks...I don't remember. Many of the ads were clearly NOT premiere showings, nor even remotely well-produced.

"My error," I thought, as I switched over to a US Fox affiliate that was broadcasting the game. And as the next batch of ads came on...poutine and hockey stick ads all over again! Why am I seeing Canadian-specific ads, when the channel I'm tuned to is the US Fox network? The TV package my Dad paid for specifically advertised and listed the ability to watch Fox, but I was most certainly being diverted during commercial breaks. What's the story? Well, it seems it's yet another case of government policy aimed at supporting some media company's business model. Two years ago, the Globe and Mail's Susan Krashinsky described it as follows:

The process is known under CRTC regulation as "simultaneous substitution"...So, whenever a U.S. station is showing the same program as a Canadian channel, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission requires that upon request the cable or satellite provider must switch the American feed over so that the Canadian commercials are visible and the broadcasters’ rights deals are upheld.

Now, in many ways, it's good for Canadians that CTV has re-broadcast rights, because this allows Canadians to receive free over-the-air transmissions of the game if they live within range of a CTV affiliate. But for the vast majority that subscribe to cable or similar services, "simultaneous substitution" or "simsub" actually removes value to the citizen, by reducing the range of programming options. And simsub can be even worse: If the "simultaneous" part is lacking, Canadians can actually miss part of the game itself while waiting for their ads to end.

The CRTC argued that this keeps advertising dollars in Canada and protects Canadian broadcasters' rights. Protectionism, sans even bothering with a euphemism. Subscribers' and citizens' rights be damned. Doubtless that during the Super Bowl broadcast, CTV requested that Bell ExpressVu remove the ads from Fox, and insert the feed from CTV. Let that sink in. Canadians paid for access to view Fox in order to see Fox's programming including Super Bowl ads, but their cable providers were required to take over our screens and run CTV ads. Canadians' eyeballs were sold to CTV without consent. Canadian customers are being treated like a commodity that has been bought and delivered to CTV. Change channels, see the same programming -- the same thing that happens in movies when some evil overlord or revolutionary takes over all the airwaves. No need for CTV to compete in any way for the viewership, just regulate for it.

The issue also brings up a common topic of discussion here at Techdirt, and that is: Where is the line between content and advertising? In 2008, Mike wrote "Advertising is content. You can't think of ads as separate things any more." But Mike also made the point that this is only true when the audience isn't captive, and thanks to the CRTC's compliance, CTV's audience is so captive that switching to a competing channel gets you the same feed. How many Canadians actually care about seeing the ads from the TV channels they paid for? A large number of Canadians offered the CRTC their feedback mostly anti-simsub, although unsurprisingly the entire media industry stood in support of the existing procedures. Shaw Cable submitted the following:

There is no content objective of the Broadcasting Act that would be achieved by providing Canadians with access to U.S. commercials that are widely available on YouTube.

Yes, a major Canadian cable company just suggested Canadians seek TV content from YouTube. Oh, how confusing the world can get when content and ads start to blend.

According to the Toronto Star, "Canadians are more likely to search YouTube for 'Super Bowl commercials' than Americans, according to Google Trends." And the number of Canadian YouTube ad searches don't account for the cable and dish subscribers who aren't aware that they've been diverted, or those who care, but won't be bothered to sit down at their PC for ad binging. In fact, the viewing experience for the commercials, much like the Big Game, is very different on a big screen with a bunch of friends than it is alone on the next day with your 4" smartphone's YouTube app. But in fact, watching the ads on YouTube is what the CRTC recommends.

The valid arguments made by the media companies include the fact that simsub is a big profit earner for them, and that it offers Canadian businesses the ability to advertise to their market directly during a major event. The profits, some $250 million CDN they say, are rolled into supporting and subsidizing the production of Canadian shows and content, stimulating the local entertainment industry. While arguably true, the ends don't justify the means. And there is no rule or guarantee that those $250 million are invested in starving artists. Regardless, the consumers are the ones really paying the bill here. They should have a choice. People that tune in to CTV should see CTV, and those that pay for and tune in to Fox...well, they should see Fox.

So while there will be no cable TV respite for Canadians hoping to see "the real" Super Bowl ads this weekend, as of this week, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The CRTC is suspending the simsub rule for cable operators starting with the Super Bowl of January 2017. Ostensibly this long lag will allow Canadian broadcasters to factor this new ruling into their negotiations for Super Bowl rights. Bell Media has the rights to the Super Bowl in January 2016, and has the option to ask for simsub, or not. Faced with a choice of "make more money or make less," I'd guess Bell opts for simsub. Meanwhile the local affiliates who broadcast RF signals will still be allowed to simsub. And the CRTC is only talking about the Super Bowl here. Other popular broadcasts like prime-time US TV shows or the Oscar Awards will still allow simsub. Too complicated for me, I'll just stay here in California for my Super Bowl fix this weekend... or maybe just sit out in the sun and watch some old NHL hockey reruns with a bag of salt 'n' vinegar chips.

from the gotta-spend-the-money-to-stop-the-money dept

We've been writing up some of the new political efforts to try to put some limits on money in politics, including Larry Lessig's Mayday SuperPAC, Represent.us' satirical campaign for the "most honest politician," Gil Fulbright, and also CounterPAC, a SuperPAC that tries to get politicians to take a pledge not to accept dark money.

They're all moving forward with their goals, and two new commercials have come out that are worth highlighting. First, Represent.us has teamed up with Mayday in their effort to promote Jim Rubens, the (generally considered to be a long shot) candidate for Senate in New Hampshire. They've sent "Gil Fulbright" to New Hampshire to "campaign" for Rubens' opponent (and former Massachusetts Senator) Scott Brown. The ad is well worth watching:

In case you can't watch it, here's a basic transcript of the text stated by the exceptionally honest Gil Fulbright:

I'm a career politician and this is an unprovoked attack on Jim Rubens. And I'm in it!

You see, me and my buddy, Scott Brown (shows picture of Brown making the "call me" sign), we want to take your tax dollars and hand them out to the cronies and lobbyists who bankroll our political campaigns.

But this Jim Rubens guy? He wants to stop corruption in Washington. He thinks it's his job to help the people of New Hampshire.

Career politicians like me? We've got a sweet thing going on. Do not let Jim Rubens screw that up.

This is a bit different from some of Mayday's earliest commercial spots which I thought were a bit weak. Frankly the first few radio ads (which, for some reason seem to have disappeared from Soundcloud where they were) sounded a little off. Lessig is a great presenter, but I'm not sure he's the best radio voice. Though, the latest TV commercial for Ruben Gallego (which also uses Lessig's voiceover) is stronger than those first few radio ads:

Finally, CounterPAC has also launched its first TV ads, including this one involving a sky diver, calling on Georgia Senate candidates Michelle Nunn and David Perdue to pledge to deny dark money in their campaigns (they also have a nearly identical ad targeting Alaska Senate candidates Mark Begich and Dan Sullivan).

The production value of the ad is a bit weak, and it kind of buries the point of the ad, which is unfortunate.

Either way, we're seeing the first steps of these efforts to try to limit the impact of money in politics and it will be worth watching how these various campaigns work out.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The Super Bowl -- uh, "the big game" -- commercials last weekend had a few ads that demonstrate (again) that people will actually want to watch commercials if they're done properly. But sometimes it's the train-wreck commercials that you just can't stop watching. Here are just a few really (really) bad lawyer commercials that might be so bad that they're actually entertaining.

from the game-that-must-not-be-named dept

The end of the NFL football season is upon us, which brings on a familiar competitive scene that all Americans will be watching with anticipation. Big names competing for the spotlight of glory, battling against one another in a free for all that will have commentators chirping even weeks after it's over. I'm talking, of course, about the advertising campaigns unleashed during the game that nobody is allowed to talk about, thanks to the NFL's lawyers. Hell, even some of these very commercials like to poke fun at the overbearing trademark-i-ness of the NFL's signature game.

Still, as a group that's long believed in the concept that advertising is content and content is advertising, it's sometimes difficult to see the way forward when it comes to winning the advertising war for the (small-case) big game. Production budgets have to be huge just to be in the running. The competitive landscape is enormous. Even some of the spots that required the most amount of effort fall flat on their faces compared to a couple of talking frogs. So how does a relatively small company win?

Well, according to the makers of Newcastle Brown Ale, you take a page out of 80's movie history and decide that the only way to win is to not play at all. That appears to be the concept behind Newcastle's non-campaign that's all about the commercial spot they were totally going to make, but didn't want to spring for. Oh, and they make fun of the NFL's trademark nature on top of it. For instance:

An ad about an ad they didn't make but want you to test market? And it's funny? A good start, but one clever spot ain't going to do it. Good thing Newcastle decided to make a bunch of content around this idea, including celebrities talking about how awesome their voiceovers were going to be, or footage of fake market testing for an ad they never made.

Now, this would be the appropriate moment to mention that the only disclosure I have to make about the relationship between myself and Newcastle is how much I dislike their Brown Ale. Seriously, I would rather stay sober during an all-night expose on the physics behind paint peeling than drink that beer. But that's a matter of taste (on both counts) and it doesn't keep me from appreciating the concept of an engaging, lighthearted ad campaign that pokes fun at beer ads, the beer company itself, and the NFL all at once. This is how you win the advertising wars of early February. By not playing, which is actually playing, but pretending not to be...you know...playing.

Taking the benefits of this kind of light-hearted content as advertising method further, it allows Newcastle to get involved in other new media in a way that keeps things just as light and doesn't come off as annoying. For instance, they sponsored a post on Gawker Media about the non-campaign campaign, and appear to have given the writer enough latitude to attempt their own funny tie-in in the "article", going so far as to headline it: We've Disguised This Newcastle Ad As An Article To Get You To Click It.

Newcastle bought this ad to promote the S**** B*** commercial they couldn't afford to make. I know you're probably cycling through the five stages of grief since you're reading an ad and ew, gross, but maybe just stop reading and watch the videos I've embedded. After all, Newcastle didn't pay Gawker Media a fraction of the cost of a S**** B*** commercial so you could read another think piece about M*ckl*m*r*.

No, they bought this space in a shameless attempt to force their Mega Huge Football Ad — and smooth, delicious Newcastle Brown Ale — down your throats. They also "bought" me — an in-house copywriter — because actual Gawker writers can't accept money from advertisers (not that I'm personally cashing Newcastle's checks but you know, whatever). As someone being paid to write this, I have to say that it's the greatest ad ever, mostly because Newcastle asked me to use those exact words. Is it the greatest ad I've ever been paid to call the greatest ad ever? Yes.

It goes on like that and it's nice that a company appears to be having so much fun at its own expense, even going as far as to allow new media writers to mock the new media concerns about new media sponsorships (This repetitive sentence brought to you by the folks at Techdirt. Techdirt: the other white meat). As I mentioned, nobody at Newcastle bothered to pay me to write this post, though if they did, I'd totally have killed it. Like, way better than Gawker. There would have been penis jokes and riffs about brown ales mixed with the obvious toilet humor. It would have been glorious.

Wait, maybe the potentiality of that post could be some kind of Techdirt ad campaign?

from the this-is-unfortunate dept

Well, this is rather disappointing. The Beastie Boys relied significantly on fair use for a lot of their music. The famed "Paul's Boutique" album, which did license some samples, is still involved in lawsuits, and a recent look at the insane cost of sampling has suggested that with today's licensing rates, there's simply no way to legally produce an album like that today. Given that, you'd think and hope that the Beastie Boys themselves wouldn't go around acting like copyright bullies. And, historically, they've mostly avoided doing so. That's why it's so disappointing to see that they've threatened the toy company GoldieBlox for the video it produced, which parodies the Beaties' classic song Girls (which samples a few songs itself), by changing the lyrics in a way that clearly comments on the misogynistic lyrics of the original. Here's the video, which went super viral earlier this week:

The whole point is to mock the message of the original song, with its famous refrain: "Girls - to do the dishes; Girls - to clean up my room; Girls - to do the laundry; Girls - and in the bathroom; Girls - that's all I really want is girls." The new one switches it to: Girls - to build the spaceship; Girls - to code the new app; Girls - to grow up knowing; That they can engineer that; Girls - That’s all we really need is Girls." The point is pretty clear. Parody the original song to highlight how ridiculous that stereotypical image of girls is -- and, of course, highlight how the kinds of toys that GoldieBlox makes can be useful in learning.

Unfortunately, however, the Beastie Boys, along with Universal Music, sent a letter to GoldieBlox threatening a copyright infringement claim. GoldieBlox decided to strike first, and has filed for a declaratory judgment in California -- a somewhat risky move. GoldieBlox clearly makes the case that what they're doing is parody and protected fair use, but courts are notoriously fickle and arbitrary in making fair use decisions.

In the lyrics of the Beastie Boys’ song entitled Girls, girls are limited (at best) to household chores, and are presented as useful only to the extent they fulfill the wishes of the male subjects. The GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video takes direct aim at the song both visually and with a revised set of lyrics celebrating the many capabilities of girls. Set to the tune of Girls but with a new recording of the music and new lyrics, girls are heard singing an anthem celebrating their broad set of capabilities—exactly the opposite of the message of the original. They are also shown engaging in activities far beyond what the Beastie Boys song would permit. GoldieBlox created its parody video specifically to comment on the Beastie Boys song, and to further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes and to encourage young girls to engage in activities that challenge their intellect, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. The GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video has gone viral on the Internet, and has been recognized by the press and the public as a parody and criticism of the original song.

While GoldieBlox was clearly using this for commercial purposes, plenty of commercial activity has been seen as fair use. Further, it seems likely that the viral success of the video almost certainly drove renewed attention (and therefore revenue) to the original Beastie Boys song. This should play into the fair use analysis, but unfortunately many courts focus solely on the "potential licensing revenue" that could have been earned, and ignore the positive impact on the original of a parody. Hopefully, a court will recognize that this is fair use but, again, fair use decisions are almost entirely arbitrary at times.

Either way, it's really disappointing to see the Beastie Boys choose to go down this path. For years, the band appeared to try to get away from the song itself, recognizing how much criticism they got for the lyrics. Adam Horovitz was quoted in an interview noting that while the song was done "as a goof," many people took it seriously and the band should have been more cognizant of that. It's also claimed that the band never performed the song live. Given that, it seems like this would have been an excellent opportunity to embrace the parody, to support the basic message of the video and to show that they didn't really mean what was said in the original lyrics.

Instead, the (remaining) Beastie Boys come off as copyright bullies, trying to stifle a message of empowerment, while standing firm on a misogynistic message in their own song. Why they'd want to come off that way when they have a clear chance to change the storyline in their favor is beyond me.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Everyone complains about intrusive and annoying ads. If ads were entertaining and enjoyable, people would actually want to watch them. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone reading Techdirt on a regular basis. Somehow, though, it's much easier to find ads that are annoying than enjoyable. Here are just a few examples of viral ads that prove that commercials don't have to be irritating or pushy to convey their marketing message.

from the wimps dept

It's become something of a sport in the past decade for roughly half of America to mock, dismiss, and otherwise tear down the Fox News channel. Personally, I'd rather like to see all of cable news go away, but there are times when I think the criticism is a tad selective and unfair. For instance, it'd be very easy to lambaste the network for the man-clowns they trotted out in the wake of a Pew Research study that showed that mothers currently make up nearly half of American household's primary wage-earners. What was for me a meh-inducing announcement was a sign of the surely-coming apocalypse for Lou Dobbs, Erick Erickson and Juan Williams. They're easily targeted as examples of the bad on the station, but if you're blinded by ideology or party alliance, you probably didn't bother to shine a light on the absolutely glorious rebuttal by Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

What we have there is an example of Fox News presenting two sides of the debate and among their own hosts to boot. In case you can't see it, Kelly uses clips from Lou Dobbs' show within her own to demonstrate her point. I mention this only to demonstrate that Fox News was not sufficiently embarrassed by the dumb things said by some of their commentators to keep from re-airing them on another of their shows. When an advocacy group wants to use those same clips for an ad-spot, however, suddenly the scramble to copyright claims has occurred. An anti-sexism group named UltraViolet submitted the ad to air on Fox's channel, painting the commentators in a negative light and then asking them to be retired from Fox News. You might expect the channel to dismiss the ad simply on the grounds that they don't want to denigrate their own programming, but that wouldn't help in trying to keep the spot off of other networks, would it? So Fox instead relied on the go-to protocol for censoring negative information. Per UltraViolet's media buyer, Buying Time, LLC:

Team – Just heard back from Fox Business. Unfortunately, Fox has rejected the ad. Due to their copyright rules, they can’t air an ad that uses their material in a spot.

It's a dumbfounding refusal on its face and is almost certainly being used as an excuse rather than a legitimate claim. Certainly nothing in copyright law would keep a network from airing commercials that use its own footage, valid copyright claim or not. It's their footage. Beyond that, this seems like a clear-cut case of fair use, the clips being central to a critique which does not seek commercial gain, are not significantly long in use, and in a way that certainly doesn't compete against Fox's own programming. Watch the ad for yourself:

Whether you think that women being primary bread-winners is okay, or whether you think that it's just the first step in the lizard-people's plot to systematically ruin American families so that children will be easy pickings for their hungry salamander love-children, using copyright claims to put down criticism is an abuse. Thankfully, UltraViolet is savvy enough to still put their spot up on YouTube instead of being too scared to show it.